Unconventional Materials for Light Dark Matter Detection

Antonio Politano; Dino Novko; Rotem Ovadia; Yonit Hochberg

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Unconventional Materials for Light Dark Matter Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Three crystals could beat dark matter detectors by up to 1000x.

desk verdict A solid, genuinely new materials-proposal paper that would benefit from softer claims in the abstract and a closer look at the demon-mode q-dependence, but deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07164 v1 pith:HEAD5EWV submitted 2025-07-09 hep-ph cond-mat.mtrl-scihep-exphysics.ins-det

Yonit Hochberg , Dino Novko , Rotem Ovadia , Antonio Politano This is my paper

classification hep-phcond-mat.mtrl-scihep-exphysics.ins-det

keywords lightdarkmattersub-MeVdirectdetectionplasmonchargedensitywaveacousticdemonhole-dopeddiamondfunctionaltheory

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes three unconventional crystals—TiSe2 in its charge-density-wave phase, Sr2RuO4, and hole-doped diamond—as detector targets for dark matter particles far lighter than a proton. It argues that each hosts an intense low-energy collective electron oscillation (a plasmon, an acoustic 'demon' mode, or a tunable optical/acoustic plasmon) that should interact with dark matter far more readily than the materials in existing proposals. Using density functional theory calculations of the materials' loss functions at finite momentum, the paper projects that a kilogram-year exposure could probe dark matter cross sections and couplings one to three orders of magnitude beyond superconducting aluminum and the best candidates from a large materials database, for both electron scattering and dark photon absorption. The anisotropic response also produces a large daily modulation in the scattering rate, enabling directional searches and background discrimination.

What carries the argument

The central object is the loss function $W(\omega,q)=\mathrm{Im}\{-1/\varepsilon_L(\omega,q)\}$, the imaginary part of the inverse longitudinal dielectric response, which controls how strongly a passing dark matter particle of momentum transfer $q$ and energy deposit $\omega$ excites collective modes in the material. The paper computes it with density functional theory at the random-phase approximation level for each material and direction, then interpolates a full angle-dependent response using all crystallographically equivalent directions. This loss function enters the scattering and absorption rate integrals directly, so the entire projected reach rests on its low-energy peak positions, widths, and momentum dependence.

What would settle it

Measure the finite-momentum loss function of TiSe2 in its charge-density-wave phase along the x and z axes with electron energy loss spectroscopy; if the measured intensity, width, or dispersion of the low-energy plasmon differs from the computed near-66 meV peak by more than an O(1) factor, the projected two-to-three-order-of-magnitude reach over existing benchmarks would need to be revised downward.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the low-energy longitudinal loss functions of TiSe2, Sr2RuO4, and hole-doped diamond make these materials exceptionally sensitive light dark matter targets, for both electron scattering and dark photon absorption. The paper computes the loss function $W(\omega,q)=\mathrm{Im}\{-1/\varepsilon_L(\omega,q)\}$ from first-principles DFT at the random-phase approximation level for finite momenta along several crystal directions, then uses crystal symmetry to build a full anisotropic response. Integrating this response into the standard dark matter-electron interaction rates yields projected 95% C.L. reaches for a background-free kilogram-year exposure with a 10 meV to 10 eV energy acceptance. The paper reports that TiSe2 outperforms superconducting aluminum and the best candidates from a high-throughput materials database by two to three orders of magnitude over several dark matter mass decades, with strong directional detection prospects; Sr2RuO4 and hole-doped diamond also surpass these benchmarks. The paper flags that its DFT modeling of TiSe2's charge-density-wave gap places the in-plane plasmon near 66 meV versus the measured 47 meV and omits phonon features, but it argues these discrepancies induce only O(1) corrections.

Load-bearing premise

The projected reaches assume that the calculated DFT-RPA loss functions faithfully give the intensity, width, and momentum dependence of the real materials' low-energy collective modes, and that real detectors achieve no backgrounds with a 10 meV energy threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A kilogram-year detector made of TiSe2, Sr2RuO4, or hole-doped diamond could probe dark matter-electron scattering cross sections and dark photon couplings in regions far beyond the reach of superconducting aluminum and other benchmark targets.
The daily modulation of the scattering rate from the Earth's rotation could allow rejection of isotropic backgrounds without any directional readout, since the anisotropic response encodes the orientation of the incoming dark matter wind.
The same density-functional-theory-plus-rate pipeline can be applied to other materials with low-energy collective modes, potentially identifying even better detector targets before fabrication.
The projected reaches are contingent on achieving a 10 meV energy threshold and zero background, which are demanding experimental requirements but in line with ongoing low-threshold detector development.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper's three examples are existence proofs for a broader class: any material with an intense, narrow low-energy collective mode—regardless of its microscopic origin—could be a competitive light dark matter target, so computational screening of charge-density-wave materials, layered perovskites, and doped semiconductors could yield further candidates.
The O(1) uncertainty estimate for TiSe2 was validated only against the paper's own fitting procedure, so an independent measurement of the finite-momentum loss function would either confirm or overturn the claimed two-to-three-order-of-magnitude advantage over existing benchmarks.
If phonon contributions absent from the DFT loss functions are significant, the true low-energy response could differ from the computed response, potentially improving the reach at the lowest dark matter masses if phonons add intensity near threshold.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The short version: this is a solid materials-proposal paper, and the central idea is genuinely new in the direct-detection context. The authors compute finite-momentum DFT loss functions for three specific materials—TiSe2 in its CDW phase, Sr2RuO4 with its demon mode, and hole-doped diamond—and project both DM-electron scattering and dark-photon absorption reaches. That specific set of computations has not been done before, and the directional daily-modulation analysis is a useful addition.

What the paper does well: the formalism is standard (dielectric function, Refs [28,29,41]), the DFT pipeline is specified in the SM (GPAW, PBE, RPA, grids), and they cross-check each material against independent experimental spectra: optical data for TiSe2, EELS for Sr2RuO4, EELS/IR for HDD. They also flag the TiSe2 discrepancy honestly—computed in-plane plasmon at 66 meV versus 47 meV measured, phonons absent—and show in the SM that this induces only O(1) changes in the scattering rate. The circularity burden is low: no parameter is fitted to any DM signal.

The soft spots are real but proportionate. The stress-test concern about q-dependence is on target: the experimental benchmarks are all at q≈0, and the TiSe2 validation of the Lindhard extrapolation is internal consistency within the same DFT framework, not an absolute check. For Sr2RuO4, the demon mode is a subtle many-body feature and PBE-RPA could easily misplace its spectral weight or dispersion; an order-of-magnitude error there would eat the claimed advantage. The paper asserts no such error, but it does not test it either. Second, the "orders of magnitude over existing proposals" in the abstract overstates the comparison, which is actually against superconducting aluminum and the Materials Project set. That is a fair benchmark, but "existing proposals" is broader. Finally, the 3-event, no-background, 10 meV threshold assumption is optimistic, though standard for projections.

Who this is for: anyone working on sub-MeV direct detection or on collective modes in materials for DM. It deserves a serious referee—the central idea is important, the formalism is sound, and the flagged uncertainties are addressable.

My recommendation: send it to review. I would also ask the authors to include error estimates or at least a sensitivity scan on the Sr2RuO4 demon parameters, and to tone down the abstract.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TiSe2, Sr2RuO4, and hole-doped diamond as target materials for sub-MeV dark matter detection. It computes ab initio DFT-RPA loss functions at finite momentum, uses them in the standard dielectric formalism (Eqs. (1) and (2)) to project rates for dark matter–electron scattering and dark photon absorption, and reports that these materials outperform superconducting aluminum and the Materials Project benchmarks by up to two to three orders of magnitude, including directional detection via daily modulation. The Supplemental Material documents the DFT setup, the angular interpolation procedure, a comparison of TiSe2 DFT results with optical data, and cross-checks of the momentum extrapolation method.

Significance. The paper is a serious and timely proposal that connects specific condensed-matter excitations—CDW plasmons, a demon mode, and doped-semiconductor plasmons—to concrete dark matter detector concepts. A clear strength is that the reach curves are genuine predictions: no parameter is fitted to any dark matter signal, and the rate integrals follow the established dielectric formalism. The DFT pipeline, the full set of computed loss functions, and the fitting/validation procedure are presented in substantial detail in the SM. If the low-energy loss functions are reliable at the relevant momenta, the claimed orders-of-magnitude improvements over existing targets, plus the directional sensitivity, would be a significant advance for the light dark matter program. The main weakness is that the absolute accuracy of the finite-momentum loss functions—the load-bearing input—is not quantified for two of the three materials.

major comments (3)

[Materials Loss Functions and Fig. 1(e)-(f)] The central quantitative claim depends on the absolute value of W(ω,q) at momenta up to ~keV for the heavy-mediator rate and at low q for the light-mediator rate. For Sr2RuO4, the demon mode is a subtle many-body feature, and its spectral weight and dispersion in PBE-RPA are not benchmarked against any finite-momentum experimental data in the paper; the claim in the main text that the response 'agrees very well' with EELS [35] is qualitative, with no error estimate. For HDD, the comparison to [27] is also qualitative. Since the projected reach scales inversely with the rate, an order-of-magnitude error in W at the relevant q would erase the claimed advantage. The authors should provide a quantitative uncertainty estimate, or at minimum a dedicated sensitivity study varying the intensity, width, and q-dispersion of the low-energy modes for each material, before the order-of-magnitude reach claim can be considered established.
[Results, Fig. 1(d), and SM Sec. III] The assertion that the TiSe2 discrepancies (66 meV computed plasmon vs. 47 meV measured, missing phonon features) 'induce only O(1) corrections' is validated only by SM Sec. III, which compares the full DFT loss function with fits to q=0 data using the Lindhard extrapolation of Eq. (S.5). That procedure tests the internal consistency of the extrapolation method, not the absolute accuracy of the DFT-RPA q-dependence, because the underlying data are either DFT or optical data extrapolated under the assumption ω² = ω_k² + q². In particular, the heavy-mediator rate integrates q² W(ω,q), so a factor-level error in the high-q plasmon intensity or dispersion would directly change the reach. I ask for a direct test: compute the scattering rate with the DFT loss function modified to place the in-plane plasmon at 47 meV with the measured width, and optionally with phonon peaks included, and show how the reach curves change. This would make the O(1) claim concrete.
[SM Eq. (S.1)] The directional reach and daily modulation signals rely on the von Mises-Fisher interpolation of Eq. (S.1) with κ=30. This is an input assumption, not a first-principles result, and no sensitivity study is given for κ or for the number of sampled symmetry-equivalent directions. Since the directional detection claim is one of the paper's two headline results, the robustness of the modulation amplitudes and of the directional reach to κ should be shown, e.g., by varying κ over a reasonable range and by checking against direct DFT results in one or two additional directions.

minor comments (5)

[Dark Matter Interaction Rates, Eq. (2)] In Eq. (2), the argument mχv mixes the DM mass with the velocity magnitude; since the text states that the transferred momentum is approximated to zero, please clarify that W is evaluated at the angle-averaged zero-momentum limit and define how the small q = mχv correction is treated.
[Analysis, dashed curves] The definition of the 'directional reach' as an Ndirectional-event reach appears only implicitly in the text; please state explicitly that the dashed curves correspond to the two-bin AM/PM analysis and that the best Cartesian direction is selected for each mass.
[SM Sec. I] The DFT section reports relaxation at Te = 100 K for the CDW supercell, while the main text states that TiSe2 loss functions are computed at T = 30 K; please clarify the relationship between the electron temperature used in the calculation and the temperature quoted for the computed response.
[Figure 2 caption] In the caption of Fig. 2, 'Materials Projectdatabase' should read 'Materials Project database'; also, the blue shaded region in panels (a), (b), and (d) is described in the text but the caption refers only to its boundary, which is slightly confusing.
[References] Reference [52] is listed as 'To appear'; if possible, update it to a completed citation or note that it is a forthcoming companion paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: reaches follow directly from ab initio DFT loss functions; self-citations are benchmarks and cross-checks, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs from ab initio DFT-RPA loss functions W(ω,q) through the standard rate formulas of Eqs. (1)-(2) to the projected reaches; no parameter is fitted to any dark matter signal. The loss functions for TiSe2, Sr2RuO4, and HDD are independent inputs cross-checked against measured optical and EELS spectra (Refs. [23], [35], [27]), and the claimed order-of-magnitude advantage follows directly from the computed W. The paper's self-citations — the rate formalism of Refs. [28,29], the superconducting-aluminum benchmarks [5,6,9], and the Materials Project database and Lindhard fitting procedure of Ref. [49] — are used as benchmarks or cross-checks, not as premises that define the result. SM Sec. III explicitly states the two assumptions of the fitting procedure (all excitations visible at q=0, and dispersion ω^2=ω_k^2+q^2) and validates it against full DFT, so no ansatz is smuggled in. The acknowledged TiSe2 discrepancy between the computed 66 meV plasmon and the measured 47 meV mode is a quantitative accuracy concern, not a circularity, because the paper does not tune its input to force agreement. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The only mild issue is the density of same-author citations in benchmark comparisons, which is not load-bearing; hence the low score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four pillars: the fidelity of the DFT-RPA loss functions in the 10 meV to 1 eV window, the standard dielectric formalism for DM-electron rates, the halo model assumptions, and the angular interpolation scheme. No new particles or forces are introduced; the collective modes are experimentally observed excitations in known materials (Refs [23-27]). The free parameters listed are modeling choices or cross-check fit parameters, none of them fitted to dark matter data.

free parameters (5)

von Mises-Fisher kernel concentration kappa = 30
Hand-chosen smoothing scale for the angular interpolation of the dielectric tensor (SM Eq. S.1). It defines the anisotropic response used in the directional reach and daily modulation curves; the SM states the resulting accuracy is O(0.1 to 1) sr.
HDD hole doping densities = n_h = 4.52e19 and 4.52e21 cm^-3
Two representative dopings chosen to show the tunability of the diamond plasmons; the reach curves depend on these values, which are inputs rather than fits.
Energy deposit acceptance window = 10 meV to 10 eV
Applied uniformly to all materials and benchmark curves in Fig. 2; brackets the low-energy modes and sets the integration range for the rates.
Lindhard fit widths and heights (Gamma_k, h_k) = fitted per peak to q=0 data
SM Eq. (S.2): used only to produce the blue-shaded TiSe2 cross-check regions in Fig. 2 by extrapolating q=0 optical or DFT data to finite momentum; not used in the main DFT-based reach curves.
Residual scaling function r(omega) = W_data(q=0) / W_fit(q=0)
SM Eq. (S.4): forces the fitted loss function to reproduce the input q=0 spectra exactly; a bookkeeping device for the TiSe2 cross-check only.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption RPA-level dielectric response from PBE Kohn-Sham states captures the low-energy loss functions, including the CDW plasmon, demon mode, and intervalence plasmons.
Used throughout Section II and SM Sec. I; known PBE/RPA limitations are acknowledged only for TiSe2 (CDW gap and screening).
domain assumption DM-electron scattering is governed by the longitudinal dielectric loss function through Eq. (1), with mediator form factors |F(q)|^2.
Standard dielectric formalism of Refs [28, 29, 41]; it is the foundation of the reach calculation and is standard in the field.
domain assumption Standard Halo Model velocity distribution with v0 = 220 km/s, ve = 230 km/s, vesc = 540 km/s and rho_chi = 0.3 GeV/cm^3.
Assumed in Section III for all rate computations; the usual benchmark for direct detection projections.
domain assumption The loss function at the lowest momentum grid point equals the q = 0 response.
SM Sec. I states the loss function is independent of q at small momenta, so the lowest-momentum grid point stands in for q = 0; used for the absorption reach and the optical cross-check.
ad hoc to paper The TiSe2 CDW phase is represented by a 2x2x1 supercell with periodic lattice distortions along the CDW amplitude phonon eigenvector, relaxed at Te = 100 K.
SM Sec. I; the resulting gap and screening deviate from experiment (66 meV computed plasmon versus 47 meV measured), and the deviations are asserted to change rates only at O(1).
ad hoc to paper For the optical-data extrapolation, all relevant excitations appear in q=0 data and each peak disperses as omega^2 = omega_k^2 + q^2.
SM Sec. III states these as the two key assumptions of the fitting procedure; used only for the TiSe2 cross-check, not for the main results.
ad hoc to paper The dielectric response between computed crystal directions follows the von Mises-Fisher kernel interpolation of SM Eq. (S.1) with kappa = 30.
Section II and SM Sec. II; the interpolation constructs the full anisotropic response that drives the daily modulation and directional reach.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unconventional Materials for Light Dark Matter Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HEAD5EWV

@misc{pith2026250707164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unconventional Materials for Light Dark Matter Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HEAD5EWV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07164}
}

abstract

We propose the use of several unconventional materials as detectors for dark matter with mass beneath the MeV scale. These include the transition-metal dichalcogenide TiSe$_2$ hosting a low-energy plasmon in the charge-density-wave phase, Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ containing a low-energy acoustic demon mode, and hole-doped diamond with tunable optical and acoustic plasmon frequencies. We perform first-principles density functional theory computations of their loss functions at non-vanishing momenta and establish their reach into light dark matter parameter space. We show that due to intense low-energy plasmon modes -- of different microscopic origin in each -- the reach of detectors based on these materials could surpass existing proposals by several orders of magnitude for both dark matter scattering and absorption on electrons. The anisotropic response of these materials, which enables directional detection, renders them exceptionally strong detector candidates, motivating the design and fabrication of future devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07164 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Ubiquitous Corotation of Dark Matter Halos: Implications for Direct Detection
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Dark matter in simulated Milky Way analogues preferentially corotates with the baryonic disk, suppressing predicted direct-detection rates for light WIMPs, reducing directional modulation, and producing a 21% astrophy...
Direct Detection of Leptophobic Dark Matter with Electronic Collective Excitations
hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Leptophobic dark matter can excite plasmons in silicon through hadronic loops, and SENSEI data now constrain its nucleon cross section down to ~1e-31 cm^2 in the sub-MeV mass range.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[27]

Bhattacharya, J

S. Bhattacharya, J. Boyd, S. Reichardt, V. Allard, A. H. Talebi, N. Maccaferri, et al., Intervalence plasmons in boron-doped diamond, Nature Communications 16, 444 (2025)

work page 2025
[23]

G. Li, W. Z. Hu, D. Qian, D. Hsieh, M. Z. Hasan, E. Morosan, et al., Semimetal-to-semimetal charge den- sity wave transition in 1 t−tise2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 027404 (2007)

work page 2007
[24]

Kogar, M

A. Kogar, M. S. Rak, S. Vig, A. A. Husain, F. Flicker, Y. I. Joe, L. Venema, G. J. MacDougall, T. C. Chiang, E. Fradkin, J. van Wezel, and P. Abbamonte, Signatures of exciton condensation in a transition metal dichalco- genide, Science 358, 1314–1317 (2017)

work page 2017
[25]

Z. Lin, C. Wang, A. Balassis, J. P. Echeverry, A. S. Vasenko, V. M. Silkin, E. V. Chulkov, Y. Shi, J. Zhang, J. Guo, and X. Zhu, Dramatic plasmon response to the charge-density-wave gap development in 1 t−tise2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 187601 (2022)

work page 2022
[31]

Knowles, B

P. Knowles, B. Yang, T. Muramatsu, O. Moulding, J. Buhot, C. J. Sayers, et al., Fermi surface reconstruc- tion and electron dynamics at the charge-density-wave transition in tise 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 167602 (2020)

work page 2020
[33]

L. Yin, H. Tang, T. Berlijn, and A. Ruzsinszky, Effi- cient simulations of charge density waves in the transition metal dichalcogenide TiSe2, npj Computational Materi- als 10, 207 (2024)

work page 2024
[34]

Maeno, A

Y. Maeno, A. Ikeda, and G. Mattoni, Thirty years of puz- zling superconductivity in sr2ruo4, Nature Physics 20, 1712 (2024)

work page 2024
[39]

T. Chen, K. V. Reich, N. J. Kramer, H. Fu, U. R. Ko- rtshagen, and B. I. Shklovskii, Metal–insulator transi- tion in films of doped semiconductor nanocrystals, Na- ture Materials 15, 299 (2015)

work page 2015

Show all 69 references

[40]

Banerjee, I

A. Banerjee, I. S. Dhillon, J. Ghosh, and S. Sra, Cluster- ing on the unit hypersphere using von mises-fisher distri- butions, Journal of Machine Learning Research 6, 1345 (2005)

2005
[42]

J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith, Review of mathematics, numerical factors, and corrections for dark matter exper- iments based on elastic nuclear recoil, Astropart. Phys. 6, 87 (1996)

1996
[50]

M. N. Gjerding, M. Pandey, and K. S. Thygesen, Band structure engineered layered metals for low-loss plasmon- ics, Nature Communications 8, 15133 (2017)

2017
[51]

A. Nag, M. Zhu, M. Bejas, J. Li, H. C. Robarts, H. Ya- mase, et al., Detection of acoustic plasmons in hole-doped lanthanum and bismuth cuprate superconductors using resonant inelastic x-ray scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 257002 (2020)

2020
[54]

J. Yan, J. J. Mortensen, K. W. Jacobsen, and K. S. Thygesen, Linear density response function in the pro- jector augmented wave method: Applications to solids, surfaces, and interfaces, Phys. Rev. B 83, 245122 (2011)

2011
[55]

Dressel, G

M. Dressel, G. Gruner, and G. Gr¨ uner, Electrodynam- ics of Solids: Optical Properties of Electrons in Matter (Cambridge University Press, 2002). Supplemental Material: Unconventional Materials for Light Dark Matter Detection Yonit Hochberg,1,2 Dino Novko,3 Rotem Ovadia,1,2 a...

2002
[56]

Early-Universe Model Building(2022) arXiv:2203.06680 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[57]

Essig, J

R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 85, 076007 (2012), arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[58]

P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, S. Rajendran, and M. T. Walters, Semiconductor Probes of Light Dark Matter, Phys. Dark Univ. 1, 32 (2012), arXiv:1203.2531 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[59]

Essig, M

R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Direct Detection of sub-GeV Dark Matter with Semiconductor Targets, JHEP 05, 046, arXiv:1509.01598 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[60]

Hochberg, Y

Y. Hochberg, Y. Zhao, and K. M. Zurek, Superconducting Detectors for Superlight Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 011301 (2016), arXiv:1504.07237 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[61]

Hochberg, M

Y. Hochberg, M. Pyle, Y. Zhao, and K. M. Zurek, Detecting Superlight Dark Matter with Fermi-Degenerate Materials, JHEP 08, 057, arXiv:1512.04533 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[62]

Hochberg, I

Y. Hochberg, I. Charaev, S.-W. Nam, V. Verma, M. Colangelo, and K. K. Berggren, Detecting Sub-GeV Dark Matter with Superconducting Nanowires, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 151802 (2019), arXiv:1903.05101 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[63]

Hochberg, E

Y. Hochberg, E. D. Kramer, N. Kurinsky, and B. V. Lehmann, Directional detection of light dark matter in superconductors, Phys. Rev. D 107, 076015 (2023), arXiv:2109.04473 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[64]

Hochberg, B

Y. Hochberg, B. V. Lehmann, I. Charaev, J. Chiles, M. Colangelo, S. W. Nam, and K. K. Berggren, New constraints on dark matter from superconducting nanowires, Phys. Rev. D 106, 112005 (2022), arXiv:2110.01586 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[65]

Derenzo, R

S. Derenzo, R. Essig, A. Massari, A. Soto, and T.-T. Yu, Direct Detection of sub-GeV Dark Matter with Scintillating Targets, Phys. Rev. D 96, 016026 (2017), arXiv:1607.01009 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[66]

Hochberg, Y

Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, C. G. Tully, and K. M. Zurek, Directional detection of dark matter with two-dimensional targets, Phys. Lett. B 772, 239 (2017), arXiv:1606.08849 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[67]

Hochberg, Y

Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, K. M. Zurek, A. G. Grushin, R. Ilan, et al., Detection of sub-MeV Dark Matter with Three-Dimensional Dirac Materials, Phys. Rev. D 97, 015004 (2018), arXiv:1708.08929 [hep-ph]. 5

2018 arXiv
[68]

Cavoto, F

G. Cavoto, F. Luchetta, and A. D. Polosa, Sub-GeV Dark Matter Detection with Electron Recoils in Carbon Nanotubes, Phys. Lett. B 776, 338 (2018), arXiv:1706.02487 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[69]

N. A. Kurinsky, T. C. Yu, Y. Hochberg, and B. Cabrera, Diamond Detectors for Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123005 (2019), arXiv:1901.07569 [hep-ex]

2019 arXiv
[70]

Blanco, J

C. Blanco, J. I. Collar, Y. Kahn, and B. Lillard, Dark Matter-Electron Scattering from Aromatic Organic Targets, Phys. Rev. D 101, 056001 (2020), arXiv:1912.02822 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[71]

S. M. Griffin, Y. Hochberg, K. Inzani, N. Kurinsky, T. Lin, and T. Chin, Silicon carbide detectors for sub-GeV dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 103, 075002 (2021), arXiv:2008.08560 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[72]

Simchony et al., Diamond and SiC Detectors for Rare Event Searches, J

A. Simchony et al., Diamond and SiC Detectors for Rare Event Searches, J. Low Temp. Phys. 216, 363 (2024)

2024
[73]

Essig et al., Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark matter direct detection in the next decade, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08297 [hep-ph]

R. Essig et al., Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark matter direct detection in the next decade, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08297 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[74]

A. Das, N. Kurinsky, and R. K. Leane, Dark Matter Induced Power in Quantum Devices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 121801 (2024), arXiv:2210.09313 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[75]

A. Das, N. Kurinsky, and R. K. Leane, Transmon Qubit constraints on dark matter-nucleon scattering, JHEP 07, 233, arXiv:2405.00112 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[76]

S. M. Griffin, G. D. Hadas, Y. Hochberg, K. Inzani, and B. V. Lehmann, Dark Matter-Electron Detectors for Dark Matter-Nucleon Interactions (2024), arXiv:2412.16283 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[77]

Baudis et al.(QROCODILE), A New Bite Into Dark Matter with the SNSPD-Based QROCODILE Experiment (2024), arXiv:2412.16279 [hep-ph]

L. Baudis et al.(QROCODILE), A New Bite Into Dark Matter with the SNSPD-Based QROCODILE Experiment (2024), arXiv:2412.16279 [hep-ph]

2024
[78]

G. Li, W. Z. Hu, D. Qian, D. Hsieh, M. Z. Hasan, E. Morosan,et al., Semimetal-to-semimetal charge density wave transition in 1t−tise2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 027404 (2007)

2007
[79]

Kogar, M

A. Kogar, M. S. Rak, S. Vig, A. A. Husain, F. Flicker, Y. I. Joe, L. Venema, G. J. MacDougall, T. C. Chiang, E. Fradkin, J. van Wezel, and P. Abbamonte, Signatures of exciton condensation in a transition metal dichalcogenide, Science 358, 1314–1317 (2017)

2017
[80]

Z. Lin, C. Wang, A. Balassis, J. P. Echeverry, A. S. Vasenko, V. M. Silkin, E. V. Chulkov, Y. Shi, J. Zhang, J. Guo, and X. Zhu, Dramatic plasmon response to the charge-density-wave gap development in 1t−tise2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 187601 (2022)

2022
[81]

A. A. Husain, E. W. Huang, M. Mitrano, M. S. Rak, S. I. Rubeck, X. Guo, et al., Pines’ demon observed as a 3d acoustic plasmon in sr2ruo4, Nature 621, 66 (2023)

2023
[82]

Bhattacharya, J

S. Bhattacharya, J. Boyd, S. Reichardt, V. Allard, A. H. Talebi, N. Maccaferri,et al., Intervalence plasmons in boron-doped diamond, Nature Communications 16, 444 (2025)

2025
[83]

Hochberg, Y

Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, N. Kurinsky, B. V. Lehmann, T. C. Yu, and K. K. Berggren, Determining Dark-Matter–Electron Scattering Rates from the Dielectric Function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151802 (2021), arXiv:2101.08263 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[84]

C. Boyd, Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, E. D. Kramer, N. Kurinsky, B. V. Lehmann, et al., Directional detection of dark matter with anisotropic response functions, Phys. Rev. D 108, 015015 (2023), arXiv:2212.04505 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[85]

F. J. Di Salvo, D. E. Moncton, and J. V. Waszczak, Electronic properties and superlattice formation in the semimetal tise2, Phys. Rev. B 14, 4321 (1976)

1976
[86]

Knowles, B

P. Knowles, B. Yang, T. Muramatsu, O. Moulding, J. Buhot, C. J. Sayers, et al., Fermi surface reconstruction and electron dynamics at the charge-density-wave transition in tise 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 167602 (2020)

2020
[87]

M. D. Watson, O. J. Clark, F. Mazzola, I. Markovi´ c, V. Sunko, T. K. Kim, K. Rossnagel, and P. D. C. King, Orbital- and kz-selective hybridization of se 4 p and ti 3d states in the charge density wave phase of tise 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 076404 (2019)

2019
[88]

L. Yin, H. Tang, T. Berlijn, and A. Ruzsinszky, Efficient simulations of charge density waves in the transition metal dichalcogenide TiSe2, npj Computational Materials 10, 207 (2024)

2024
[89]

Maeno, A

Y. Maeno, A. Ikeda, and G. Mattoni, Thirty years of puzzling superconductivity in sr2ruo4, Nature Physics 20, 1712 (2024)

2024
[90]

Schultz, A

J. Schultz, A. Lubk, F. Jerzembeck, N. Kikugawa, M. Knupfer, D. Wolf, et al., Optical and acoustic plasmons in the layered material sr2ruo4 (2024), arXiv:2401.05880 [cond-mat.str-el]

2024 arXiv
[91]

E. A. Ekimov, V. A. Sidorov, E. D. Bauer, N. N. Mel’nik, N. J. Curro, J. D. Thompson, et al., Superconductivity in diamond, Nature 428, 542 (2004)

2004
[92]

Pines, Collective energy losses in solids, Rev

D. Pines, Collective energy losses in solids, Rev. Mod. Phys. 28, 184 (1956)

1956
[93]

P. Du, D. Ega˜ na-Ugrinovic, R. Essig, and M. Sholapurkar, Doped semiconductor devices for sub-MeV dark matter detection, Phys. Rev. D 109, 055009 (2024), arXiv:2212.04504 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[94]

T. Chen, K. V. Reich, N. J. Kramer, H. Fu, U. R. Kortshagen, and B. I. Shklovskii, Metal–insulator transition in films of doped semiconductor nanocrystals, Nature Materials 15, 299 (2015)

2015
[95]

Banerjee, I

A. Banerjee, I. S. Dhillon, J. Ghosh, and S. Sra, Clustering on the unit hypersphere using von mises-fisher distributions, Journal of Machine Learning Research 6, 1345 (2005)

2005
[96]

Knapen, J

S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Dark matter-electron scattering in dielectrics, Phys. Rev. D 104, 015031 (2021), arXiv:2101.08275 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[97]

J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith, Review of mathematics, numerical factors, and corrections for dark matter experiments based on elastic nuclear recoil, Astropart. Phys. 6, 87 (1996)

1996
[98]

Knapen, J

S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, python package for dark matter scattering in dielectric targets, Phys. Rev. D 105, 015014 (2022), arXiv:2104.12786 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[99]

Hochberg, T

Y. Hochberg, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Absorption of light dark matter in semiconductors, Phys. Rev. D 95, 023013 (2017), 6 arXiv:1608.01994 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[100]

G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, A Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals, Phys. Rev. D 57, 3873 (1998), arXiv:physics/9711021

1998 arXiv
[101]

Aguilar-Arevalo et al

A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (DAMIC), Constraints on Light Dark Matter Particles Interacting with Electrons from DAMIC at SNOLAB, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 181802 (2019), arXiv:1907.12628 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[102]

Arnquist et al

I. Arnquist et al. (DAMIC-M), First Constraints from DAMIC-M on Sub-GeV Dark-Matter Particles Interacting with Electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 171003 (2023), arXiv:2302.02372 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[103]

Adari et al.(SENSEI), First Direct-Detection Results on Sub-GeV Dark Matter Using the SENSEI Detector at SNOLAB, Phys

P. Adari et al.(SENSEI), First Direct-Detection Results on Sub-GeV Dark Matter Using the SENSEI Detector at SNOLAB, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 011804 (2025), arXiv:2312.13342 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[104]

S. M. Griffin, Y. Hochberg, B. V. Lehmann, R. Ovadia, K. A. Persson, B. A. Suter, R. Yang, XI, and W. Zhao, First High-Throughput Evaluation of Dark Matter Detector Materials, (2025), arXiv:2506.19905 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[105]

M. N. Gjerding, M. Pandey, and K. S. Thygesen, Band structure engineered layered metals for low-loss plasmonics, Nature Communications 8, 15133 (2017)

2017
[106]

A. Nag, M. Zhu, M. Bejas, J. Li, H. C. Robarts, H. Yamase, et al., Detection of acoustic plasmons in hole-doped lanthanum and bismuth cuprate superconductors using resonant inelastic x-ray scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 257002 (2020)

2020
[107]

Hochberg, D

Y. Hochberg, D. Novko, R. Ovadia, and A. Politano, To appear
[108]

J. J. Mortensen, A. H. Larsen, M. Kuisma, A. V. Ivanov, A. Taghizadeh, A. Peterson, et al., Gpaw: An open python package for electronic structure calculations, The Journal of Chemical Physics 160, 092503 (2024)

2024
[109]

J. Yan, J. J. Mortensen, K. W. Jacobsen, and K. S. Thygesen, Linear density response function in the projector augmented wave method: Applications to solids, surfaces, and interfaces, Phys. Rev. B 83, 245122 (2011)

2011
[110]

Dressel, G

M. Dressel, G. Gruner, and G. Gr¨ uner, Electrodynamics of Solids: Optical Properties of Electrons in Matter(Cambridge University Press, 2002)

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [27]

Bhattacharya, J

S. Bhattacharya, J. Boyd, S. Reichardt, V. Allard, A. H. Talebi, N. Maccaferri, et al., Intervalence plasmons in boron-doped diamond, Nature Communications 16, 444 (2025)

work page 2025

[2] [23]

G. Li, W. Z. Hu, D. Qian, D. Hsieh, M. Z. Hasan, E. Morosan, et al., Semimetal-to-semimetal charge den- sity wave transition in 1 t−tise2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 027404 (2007)

work page 2007

[3] [24]

Kogar, M

A. Kogar, M. S. Rak, S. Vig, A. A. Husain, F. Flicker, Y. I. Joe, L. Venema, G. J. MacDougall, T. C. Chiang, E. Fradkin, J. van Wezel, and P. Abbamonte, Signatures of exciton condensation in a transition metal dichalco- genide, Science 358, 1314–1317 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [25]

Z. Lin, C. Wang, A. Balassis, J. P. Echeverry, A. S. Vasenko, V. M. Silkin, E. V. Chulkov, Y. Shi, J. Zhang, J. Guo, and X. Zhu, Dramatic plasmon response to the charge-density-wave gap development in 1 t−tise2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 187601 (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [31]

Knowles, B

P. Knowles, B. Yang, T. Muramatsu, O. Moulding, J. Buhot, C. J. Sayers, et al., Fermi surface reconstruc- tion and electron dynamics at the charge-density-wave transition in tise 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 167602 (2020)

work page 2020

[6] [33]

L. Yin, H. Tang, T. Berlijn, and A. Ruzsinszky, Effi- cient simulations of charge density waves in the transition metal dichalcogenide TiSe2, npj Computational Materi- als 10, 207 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [34]

Maeno, A

Y. Maeno, A. Ikeda, and G. Mattoni, Thirty years of puz- zling superconductivity in sr2ruo4, Nature Physics 20, 1712 (2024)

work page 2024

[8] [39]

T. Chen, K. V. Reich, N. J. Kramer, H. Fu, U. R. Ko- rtshagen, and B. I. Shklovskii, Metal–insulator transi- tion in films of doped semiconductor nanocrystals, Na- ture Materials 15, 299 (2015)

work page 2015